Visual Sentinel

Change a server

vs_servers_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Change a server's details, alert limits and channels, or put it in maintenance until a time. Send only the fields to change.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "vs_servers_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Server id.
`os`	No	LINUX (default) or MACOS, for the server agent.
`name`	No	Display name.
`tags`	No
`status`	No	Set MAINTENANCE (with maintenanceUntil) to hold alerts back.
`hostname`	No	Host name of the server, unique in the workspace.
`ipAddress`	No	Optional IPv4 or IPv6 address.
`alertDelay`	No	Seconds to wait before alerting (0 to 86400).
`description`	No
`environment`	No	For example production (default) or staging.
`alertEnabled`	No	false stops this server's alerts.
`cpuThreshold`	No	CPU percent that triggers an alert (1 to 100).
`alertCooldown`	No	Seconds between repeat alerts (0 to 86400).
`diskThreshold`	No	Disk percent that triggers an alert (1 to 100).
`loadCritRatio`	No	Load per CPU core that is critical (0.1 to 8).
`loadWarnRatio`	No	Load per CPU core that warns (0.1 to 8).
`monitoringMode`	No	AGENT (install the Visual Sentinel agent on the server) or MANAGED_HOST (shared or managed hosting with no agent).
`hostingProvider`	No	With MANAGED_HOST: HOSTINGER or OTHER.
`memoryThreshold`	No	Memory percent that triggers an alert (1 to 100).
`maintenanceUntil`	No	ISO 8601 end of server maintenance; null clears it.
`hostingAccountKey`	No	With MANAGED_HOST: the hosting account the sites share.
`consecutiveThreshold`	No	Readings over a limit in a row before an alert (1 to 20).
`notificationChannelIds`	No	Alert channel ids for this server's alerts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing partial-update semantics (omitted fields untouched) and the maintenance-until-a-time behavior. It stops short of explaining consequences such as disabling alerting or overwriting channel lists, which matters for a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence of scope plus one sentence of instruction, with no filler. The update-mode instruction is placed where an agent will read it before constructing the payload.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 23-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main capability clusters and the update contract. Gaps are minor: it doesn't mention return behavior or the coupling between status=MAINTENANCE and maintenanceUntil, though the schema does hint at the latter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 91%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by stating partial-update semantics, which the schema does not convey on its own (all fields optional except id, additionalProperties=false). It adds no per-parameter detail beyond that, but the schema already carries enums and ranges.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('change') and resource ('a server'), and enumerates the scopes it covers: details, alert limits and channels, maintenance. This distinguishes it from vs_servers_get/create/delete and vs_servers_monitors_set without ambiguity. It does not explicitly name siblings, keeping it at 4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Send only the fields to change' gives clear patch-style usage guidance. However, it never addresses when to use this versus vs_maintenance_create/update for putting a server into maintenance, or vs_servers_monitors_set for monitor linkage — both plausible confusions given the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Visual Sentinel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.